[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-12296 JUNE 10, 2009
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-60175-CR-WPD
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROGER DEMAREST,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(June 10, 2009)
Before MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER,* District
Judge.
*
Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
PRYOR, Circuit Judge:
This appeal presents four issues about a conviction and sentence for money
laundering. After he sold a sailboat to two undercover law enforcement officers
who posed as narcotics traffickers, Roger Demarest was convicted of one count of
money laundering and acquitted of two other counts of the same offense.
Demarest argues that he was intoxicated and entrapped; prosecutorial misconduct
entitles him to a new trial; the district court delivered a coercive Allen charge; and
the district court erred when it calculated his sentence. These arguments fail.
When we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the
record establishes that Demarest was a persistent and lucid salesman who was
eager to close the boat deal even though he knew that the agents’ purchase money
was illegal drug proceeds. Demarest failed to prove that any statements by the
prosecutor prejudiced him; the Allen charge was the pattern jury instruction, which
we have upheld as not being coercive; and the district court correctly applied the
Sentencing Guidelines. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In June 2007, Demarest, a yacht broker in south Florida, was indicted on
three counts of money laundering that occurred during a sting operation in which
two undercover law enforcement officers posed as narcotics traffickers. The sting
2
operation commenced in 2005 and originally targeted William Pepper Rodda,
another yacht broker. Bruce Coleman, a federal revenue agent, posed as a money
launderer and financier for a drug smuggler, and Doug Peters, a Sarasota police
officer, posed as the boat captain for the drug smuggler. Coleman first met Rodda
in April 2005, and the pair met again, with Peters, in November 2005. Hurricane
Katrina and Coleman’s work on unrelated cases caused the delay between the
meetings. Because the agents asked to purchase a boat with cash and without
completing any paperwork, Rodda would not sell them a boat.
Rodda recommended that the agents contact Demarest, a friend of his, who
was the listed broker for a fifty-foot sailboat that might meet their needs. Although
the agents had not previously heard of Demarest, they followed Rodda’s
recommendation. The agents first met with Demarest in November 2005.
Demarest asked the agents where they planned to sail, and they told him
South America. The agents asked Demarest about the fuel capacity and radar
equipment of the boat, and Demarest became aware that they planned to use the
boat for an illicit purpose. Demarest offered to help the agents acquire the radar
equipment they needed.
When the three men began to discuss the purchase of the boat, the agents
stated that their boss would buy the boat only with cash. Although Demarest said
3
he “d[id]n’t like cash[,]” he agreed to accept cash if the agents would pay in
increments smaller than $10,000 to avoid “the IRS com[ing] down on [his] case.”
Coleman told Demarest that their boss’s name could not appear on the contract,
and Demarest advised the agents to form a Delaware corporation to purchase the
boat. The agents also inquired about the likelihood that the Coast Guard would
board the boat, and Demarest explained that the Coast Guard ordinarily boarded
powerboats, not sailboats.
Demarest’s awareness of the illicit nature of the agents’ business increased
as the meeting continued. The agents explained that they could not enter a contract
that day because their boss “can’t come in[to] the country right now.” Demarest
asked whether the boss was “a bad boy,” and the agents responded that “one of his
employees got popped and kind of rolled over on him” and that “[d]opers are
dopey and people are dopey.” Demarest told the agents that he “thought [he] was
smelling a little . . . whiff of that.” When Peters stated that he liked the boat
because it could haul a lot of “cargo,” Demarest responded that he “didn’t hear
that[,]” and Coleman stated that Peters “didn’t say ‘drugs,’ he said ‘cargo.’” Peters
stated that he had been “hauling dope on catamarans and . . . [couldn’t] get enough
on them to make.” Demarest again stated that the boat was fast, and he told the
agents about his own experience smuggling marijuana. Peters stated that “cocaine
4
is the thing here” and that he was interested in all of the spaces on the boat where
he could “put some kilos,” which were worth “eighteen thou” per kilo. Demarest
expressed interest in being a member of Peters’s crew, continued to boast about his
experience running drugs, and stated that he had never been stopped by the Coast
Guard, perhaps because he used women and children on board as distractions.
Coleman told Demarest that Rodda “was scared” of the agents, and
Demarest responded that Rodda had previously served time related to drug charges
and did not want to lose his brokerage license. Demarest also told the agents that
his “old lady snagged some of [Rodda’s] dope on [their] last run.” Demarest told
the agents that he would not tell Rodda that the agents were drug smugglers but
would share his commission with Rodda. Demarest stated that he could
distinguish federal agents from real drug runners by the kind of car agents drive
and that he was “in the same camp” as they were. After the agents exchanged
contact information with Demarest, they left and called Rodda to ask whether he
wanted to participate in the transaction. Rodda declined, and the Internal Revenue
Service terminated its investigation of him.
On November 11, 2005, Coleman called Demarest to say that his boss had
approved the boat purchase. The deal was postponed until later that month because
of Hurricane Wilma. On November 21, 2005, Coleman met Demarest at the yacht
5
sales company that Demarest owned, Parrot & Herst Yacht Sales, with $18,000 in
cash as a down payment. Coleman stated that his boss would pay the asking price
for the boat, $179,000. Demarest suggested that Coleman call the Delaware
corporation that would purchase the boat “Sand and Sea Charters[,]” and he
referred Coleman to a documentation company to establish the corporation.
Demarest explained that he ordinarily “just made up a name” for the individual
who formed the company.
During the same meeting, Demarest told Coleman that he had been “drunk
as a hoot” when he first showed the agents the boat and had “said more than [he]
ever wanted to say.” Demarest said he could not be a member of a smuggling crew
because he was “too old.” Coleman asked Demarest whether he had told the owner
of the boat that the purchasers were “in the dope business[,]” and Demarest said he
had not. Demarest expressed concern that Coleman was “in the federal business”
but proceeded with the arrangements for the deal. Demarest and Coleman agreed
that “it was imperative that neither of their names appear on a wire transfer to the
bank of funds in excess of $9,999[,]” and Demarest told Coleman to supply a name
and identification, “phony or not[,]” for the corporate documents. Demarest and
Coleman counted the $18,000, and Demarest told Coleman that he would probably
keep only $1,000 of his commission after paying debts. After the men counted the
6
money, Demarest provided Coleman the documents to establish the corporation
and told him how to “fudge this up.”
Eight days later, Coleman and Demarest spoke by telephone. Because
Coleman had not yet received approval for the cash he needed to complete the
transaction, he told Demarest that he needed to delay the deal because he had been
injured in a car accident. Over the next several days, Demarest left numerous
voice-mail messages for Coleman and suggested that he had another buyer for the
boat if Coleman was unable to complete the purchase. Demarest also told
Coleman that he would travel to Coleman’s bank in Hilton Head, South Carolina,
if that was necessary to close the deal.
On December 7, Coleman and Demarest again spoke by telephone.
Demarest told Coleman that he “really want[ed] to make this thing happen”
because he was “in the weeds” from having lost half his inventory in Hurricanes
Katrina and Wilma. Demarest described “Sand and Sea Charters” as a “cartoon
name” for the putative purchaser of the boat, and he and Coleman agreed to
provide a “Mickey Mouse” social security number for the corporate documents. In
a different conversation later that day, Demarest confirmed that the owner of the
boat would accept cash at the closing.
On December 13, Coleman and Demarest met at Parrot & Herst, and
7
Coleman paid Demarest $8,000 in cash. Demarest told Coleman that he would
find out what Coast Guard documents would be required at the closing and
whether a “Mickey Mouse” signature would work or a “real body” would be
necessary. Coleman and Demarest agreed to tell the documentation service that the
purchaser did not want to be present at closing.
On December 16, Coleman and Demarest spoke by telephone, and Coleman
provided Demarest the name, address, and social security number of the putative
president of Sand and Sea Charters. The information belonged to Michael Pratt,
another federal agent. Coleman and Demarest arranged to meet the owner of the
boat before closing to pay the balance due on the boat, $155,000. Demarest again
told Coleman that the owner had no idea as to the true source of the money. Three
days later, Coleman and Demarest again spoke by telephone, and Demarest told
Coleman that Pratt’s signature would be required at the closing. Coleman told
Demarest that Pratt was an old school friend and that Coleman would forge the
signature.
Demarest proposed that he and Coleman meet the owner of the boat aboard
the boat to count the cash because he did not “want anybody in the office to see
what’s going on.” Coleman asked whether Demarest would want to participate in
a smuggling trip, and Demarest said that he would “love to” but could not because
8
of his age. Coleman also asked Demarest about Rodda, and Demarest responded
that Rodda did not know anything and was cut out “completely . . . because he’d
figure out this whole thing in a heartbeat.”
Coleman and Demarest met for the last time on December 21, 2005. After
they counted the money with the owner on the boat, the three men drove separately
to the office where the closing occurred. Coleman represented to the closing agent
that Pratt had previously signed the documents, and Demarest told her that he
would not be processing the documents through Parrot & Herst because he did the
deal “as a favor.” After the closing concluded, Coleman paid Demarest a dockage
fee for the boat, and Demarest agreed to watch for other boats that Coleman’s boss
could use to “outrun the cops[.]” Demarest asked whether Coleman did “one-time
runs” or “multiples.”
On January 9, 2005, Coleman and Demarest spoke over the phone.
Demarest told Coleman that the Coast Guard had rejected the social security
number of the president of the corporation that purchased the boat and that
Coleman needed to provide a “good” number that matched Pratt’s name. When
Coleman called Demarest with a number, Demarest told Coleman that he had
located a gold-plated yacht that would be perfect for Coleman.
In June 2007, Demarest was indicted for three counts of money laundering.
9
The first two counts charged that Demarest laundered funds, 18 U.S.C. §
1956(a)(3)(A),(B), when he accepted the down payment of $18,000 on November
21, 2005, and the balance payment of $155,000 on December 21, 2005. The third
count charged that Demarest laundered funds, id. § 1956(a)(3)(A)–(C), when he
accepted the payment of $8,000 on December 13, 2005. Demarest was arrested in
July 2007. After he watched clips from the videotapes of his meetings with
Coleman, Demarest stated that he was obviously guilty. In his post-arrest
statement, Demarest stated that he was not under the influence of alcohol at that
time.
Demarest raised two defenses at trial: intoxication and entrapment. His
voluntary intoxication defense was that he had an alcohol dependency that was
exacerbated by business difficulties following Hurricane Wilma and that his
drunkenness precluded the formation of the specific intent necessary to launder
money. At trial, a friend of Demarest’s and Demarest’s wife both testified that
Demarest is an alcoholic. Neither the friend nor the wife had ever seen Demarest
conduct a business transaction or seen Demarest on the dates of the crimes with
which he was charged. Demarest’s wife also testified that Demarest’s alcoholism
was particularly bad after Hurricane Wilma, when he lost much of his inventory.
Demarest testified on his own behalf. He stated that he drank every day in
10
2005. Demarest testified that when Coleman approached him about the purchase
of the sailboat, Demarest had no money and debts to pay. Demarest stated that he
was very drunk during his first and last meetings with Coleman and that his
statements to the agents about previous experiences in drug trafficking were lies.
Demarest admitted to participating in one drug run with Rodda in the early 1980s
but stated that he did not know that he was participating in a drug run when the trip
began. Demarest stated that he was desperate to sell the boat because he needed
his commission to pay his bills and support his mother. Demarest also testified
that he fabricated the story about the other buyer of the boat as a sales tactic.
Finally, Demarest admitted that he advised Coleman to use a phony identification
to complete the transaction, knew that the agents’ purchasing funds could be drug
proceeds, and proposed another deal to Coleman after the closing on the sailboat.
During her cross-examination of Demarest and closing argument, the
prosecutor made four statements to which Demarest’s objections were sustained.
Demarest first objected when the prosecutor asked him during cross-examination
about financial records to support his allegation that he was desperate. Demarest
then objected three times during the closing argument by the prosecutor. Demarest
objected to the following argument about entrapment:
[I]f this case represents to you entrapment, then we would never ever
have a case where entrapment wouldn’t be a defense. If this case
11
shows inducement, undue pressure by these agents, this case, let’s just
throw away the money laundering statute sting and just go home
because that’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous to suggest it and its insulting.
He also objected to burden-shifting when the prosecutor argued, “I mean him
saying, ‘I used all the money to pay off bills[,]’ where is the evidence of that?
Where is evidence of that in this case?” Demarest also objected to the following
argument about intoxication:
If intoxication is a defense here . . . then I guess anytime a crime is
committed someone can just say, well, I was intoxicated, so don’t
hold me responsible. I robbed the bank, but I was drunk. I drove
home drunk, but I was drunk, so you can’t arrest me. I was
intoxicated.
Demarest moved for a mistrial based on these arguments, and the district court
denied his motion.
The jury began deliberating at 10:20 a.m. on November 20, 2007. At 9:50
a.m. the next day, the jury submitted a note asking whether it could “ask for mercy
if we decide on a guilty verdict.” At the request of Demarest’s counsel, the district
court referred the jury back to the original instructions. At 10:20 a.m., the jury
stated that it was at an impasse and the district court delivered the pattern Allen
charge. See Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal Cases), Trial
Instruction 7 (2003). Demarest’s lawyer stated, “Judge Cooke asked me why I
always object to ‘an Allen charge,’ and I said I don’t know. It’s what I have
12
always done. So obviously I will object and ask for a mistrial.” Later that day, the
jury returned its verdict. Demarest was convicted on the second count and
acquitted of the first and third counts.
The presentence investigation report recommended a range of 63 to 78
months of imprisonment. The report included a two-level enhancement because
Demarest was convicted of money laundering under section 1956, United States
Sentencing Guidelines § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B) (Nov. 2008), and a six-level enhancement
because Demarest knew or believed the laundered funds were the proceeds of, or
intended to promote the distribution of, controlled substances, id. § 2S1.1(b)(1)(A).
Demarest challenged the enhancements and requested a downward variance. The
district court overruled Demarest’s objections.
At sentencing, Demarest presented more testimony about his alcoholism,
testimony about other health problems, and an apology. After consideration of the
statutory factors for sentencing, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court granted
Demarest’s request for a downward variance from the guideline range and imposed
a sentence of 48 months of imprisonment with three years of supervised release.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
“We review sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the government and drawing all reasonable inferences and
13
credibility choices in favor of the jury’s verdict.” United States v. Trujillo, 146
F.3d 838, 845 (11th Cir. 1998). “The relevant question in reviewing a sufficiency
of the evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted). “We review the district court’s refusal to grant a mistrial for abuse
of discretion.” Id. “Our review of a district court’s decision to give an Allen
charge is limited to evaluating the coercive impact of the charge.” Id. at 846. “We
review the district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines de novo and its
findings of fact for clear error.” United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1253 (11th
Cir. 2005).
III. DISCUSSION
Our discussion of this appeal is divided in four parts. We first discuss the
issues about the evidence supporting Demarest’s conviction; we then discuss
Demarest’s motions for a mistrial; we next discuss the Allen charge; and we then
discuss Demarest’s sentence.
A. The Record Supports Demarest’s Conviction for Money Laundering.
Demarest raises three arguments about the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his conviction for money laundering, but all the arguments fail.
14
Demarest first argues that he proved that he was intoxicated; he next argues that he
proved that he was entrapped; and he then argues for the first time on appeal that
the evidence underlying his conviction is insufficient under the decisions of the
Supreme Court in Cuellar v. United States, U.S. , 128 S. Ct. 1994 (2008),
and United States v. Santos, U.S. , 128 S. Ct. 2020 (2008). We discuss each
argument in turn.
1. The Jury Reasonably Rejected Demarest’s Intoxication Defense.
Demarest argued that he was so drunk on the day of the closing that he could
not form the specific intent necessary to launder money, but the jury reasonably
concluded that Demarest was not that impaired by alcohol that day. Demarest
appeared lucid to Coleman as they and the owner of the boat counted and divided
the money. Demarest drove from the dock to the closing separately from Coleman
and the owner of the boat. Demarest did not correct Coleman’s lie to the closing
agent that Pratt had previously signed the documents and himself lied that he did
the deal “as a favor.” Demarest seized the opportunity to develop a customer
relationship: he offered to watch for other boats that might suit Coleman’s
trafficking needs and asked about his tactics for trafficking. Demarest’s
cumulative physical and mental efforts on the day of the closing suggest that he
was not so drunk that he did not know and intend what was happening.
15
The jury also reasonably rejected Demarest’s intoxication defense because
Demarest testified in detail about the transaction. We long ago said that it is
reasonable for a defense lawyer not to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense
when the sworn and detailed recollections of the defendant discredit it, Harich v.
Dugger, 844 F.2d 1464, 1471 (11th Cir. 1988) (en banc), partially abrogated on
other grounds by Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U.S. 1, 114 S. Ct. 2004 (1994), as
recognized in Davis v. Singletary, 119 F.3d 1471, 1482 (11th Cir. 1997), so it is
certainly reasonable for a jury to reject that defense in that circumstance.
2. The Jury Reasonably Rejected Demarest’s Entrapment Defense.
Demarest argued that because of his alcoholism and business troubles, he
was “easy prey for overbearing Government agents who presented the financial
situation . . . that they were well aware he could not refuse,” but this defense fails
because the evidence overwhelmingly proved that Demarest was predisposed to
close the illegal deal. “A successful entrapment defense requires two elements: (1)
government inducement of the crime, and (2) lack of predisposition on the part of
the defendant.” United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618, 623 (11th Cir. 1995). The
defendant bears the burden of proving inducement, but after the defendant offers
proof of inducement, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime. Id. Demarest’s appeal turns
16
on the predisposition inquiry because the district court instructed the jury that
Demarest had proved inducement and the government had to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that he was predisposed to launder money.
In Brown, we articulated “guiding principles” for the fact-intensive inquiry
about predisposition and the critical nature of a defendant’s testimony:
Predisposition may be demonstrated simply by a defendant’s ready
commission of the charged crime. A predisposition finding is also
supported by evidence that the defendant was given opportunities to
back out of illegal transactions but failed to do so. . . . [T]he fact-
intensive nature of the entrapment defense often makes jury
consideration of demeanor and credibility evidence a pivotal factor.
Id. at 625 (citations omitted).
The evidence overwhelmingly proved Demarest’s predisposition. Demarest
“read[il]y commi[tted] . . . the charged crime.” Id. Demarest pursued the
transaction even though he knew from the first meeting that the agents were
purchasing the boat with drug proceeds and to run drugs. Demarest took every
opportunity to help the agents conceal their purchase: he suggested a corporate
form with a fictitious president; he instructed the documentation service at the
closing that he did the transaction “as a favor”; and he accepted a cash payment
structured so as to avoid detection by the bank. When Demarest thought that the
deal might have gone stale, he hounded Coleman with voice mails and fibbed that
there was another buyer interested in the boat. Demarest expressed personal
17
interest in participating in the drug runs, and he was so eager to complete the sale
that he told Coleman that he would travel out-of-state to close the deal. Indeed,
this sale was not enough. Demarest told Coleman that he hoped there would be
more and would watch for other boats that might help the group “outrun the cops.”
Demarest had multiple opportunities to back out of the boat deal before he
committed the offense of conviction, which occurred on the day of the closing, the
very last day of the transaction. It is hard to imagine a more enthusiastic money
launderer.
Demarest also testified on his own behalf, and the jury was entitled to find
that he was predisposed to commit the crime based on his demeanor and
credibility. The jury was entitled to disbelieve his testimony that his statements
about his drug trafficking experience were lies and to credit his earlier statements
that he had participated in drug deals with Rodda. Perhaps most importantly, the
jury was entitled to believe Demarest’s testimony that he was desperate, or
predisposed, to close the deal because of dire financial straits.
3. Cuellar and Santos Do Not Support Demarest’s Position.
Demarest also argues that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Cuellar and
Santos suggest that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Because
Demarest raises these arguments for the first time on appeal, we review them only
18
for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1776
(1993). Demarest’s arguments about Cuellar and Santos fail.
Demarest argues that “the Court held [in Santos] that [‘]proceeds[’ was
limited] to ‘profits’ from a criminal operation, and not just receipts, which is what
the agents in the instant case asserted they were obtaining.” He also argues that an
analysis of Cuellar leads to the conclusion that if the transaction was not intended
to conceal the true nature, ownership, or location of the funds, it is not money
laundering. He contends that “the payment [at closing] was not concealed or
structured” and “[t]he sale of the vessel” also was not concealed.
Demarest’s argument about Santos fails. Santos has limited precedential
value. Three parts of Justice Scalia’s four-part opinion are for a plurality of
justices, and those parts do not state a rule for this case. See Santos, 128 S. Ct. at
2022–45. “When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale
explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, ‘the holding of the Court
may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the
judgments on the narrowest grounds . . . .’” Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188,
193, 97 S. Ct. 990, 993 (1977) (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 169 n.15,
96 S. Ct. 2909, 2923 n.15 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.)).
The narrow holding in Santos, at most, was that the gross receipts of an unlicensed
19
gambling operation were not “proceeds” under section 1956, but there is no
evidence that the funds Demarest laundered were gross receipts of an illegal
gambling operation. The evidence instead established that the laundered funds
were the proceeds of an enterprise engaged in illegal drug trafficking.
Demarest’s argument about Cuellar also fails. Cuellar involved a different
statute than the one under which Demarest was convicted. Cuellar considered
whether the government may prove a design to conceal or disguise the nature,
location, source, ownership, or control of the proceeds of a specified unlawful
activity by proving that a defendant concealed the proceeds during their
transportation across the border. See 128 S. Ct. at 2002–06. Although the statute
under which Demarest was convicted does not mention a “design to conceal or
disguise[,]” one subsection of that statute requires the government to prove “intent
. . . to conceal.” 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3)(B). Even if Cuellar applies to Demarest’s
conviction under that subsection, it has no impact on his conviction under clause
(A) of subsection (3) for laundering money “with the intent . . . to promote the
carrying on of specified unlawful activity.” Id. § 1956(a)(3)(A) (emphasis added).
B. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion When It Denied Demarest’s
Motions for a Mistrial.
Demarest argues that the district court abused its discretion when it denied
his motions for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct, but this argument
20
fails. In reviewing the claim of prosecutorial misconduct, we assess (1) “whether
the challenged statements were improper” and (2), “if so, whether they
prejudicially affected the appellants’ substantial rights.” United States v. Obregon,
893 F.2d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 1990). Demarest fails to explain how any of the
arguments he attacks prejudiced him.
Demarest first argues that the prosecutor impermissibly shifted the burden of
proof from the government to him when she asked him during cross-examination
about financial records to support his allegation that he was desperate, but we
disagree. The prosecutor was entitled to cross-examine Demarest after he decided
to testify, and a cross-examination necessarily entails testing the plausibility of a
defendant’s account. See United States v. Garcia-Guizar, 160 F.3d 511, 521–22
(9th Cir. 1998). Demarest also fails to make any argument about how this question
substantially prejudiced him.
The prosecutor also made three improper arguments in closing, but none of
the improper arguments were grounds for a mistrial. Demarest’s objections to the
prosecutor’s improper arguments about entrapment, intoxication, and burden-
shifting were all sustained and requests for curative instructions were granted, but
Demarest failed to establish that any of these improper arguments substantially
prejudiced him. The jury instead acquitted Demarest on two of three charges. The
21
district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Demarest’s motion for a
mistrial. See Obregon, 893 F.2d at 1310.
C. The Allen Charge Was Not Coercive.
Demarest argues that the jury wanted to show mercy and the pattern Allen
charge “obviously intimidated jurors to reach a compromise, inconsistent
verdict[,]” but this argument fails. We have explained that the pattern Allen charge
is not coercive because it “specifically requests that ‘no juror is expected to give up
an honest belief he or she may have as to the weight or effect of the evidence[,]’”
Trujillo, 146 F.3d at 846–47 (footnote omitted), and the split verdict at Demarest’s
trial does not establish that the charge was coercive to these jurors. Viewed in the
light of the inquiry by the jury about whether it could show mercy, the acquittals
appear motivated by leniency, not intimidation. The Allen charge was not error.
D. The District Court Did Not Err When It Enhanced Demarest’s Sentence.
Demarest’s remaining arguments pertain to the enhancement of his sentence.
He raises two objections. Both fail.
Demarest first argues that the district court double counted when it enhanced
his sentence by two levels because he was convicted under section 1956, but that
enhancement does not constitute impermissible double counting. “Impermissible
double counting occurs only when one part of the Guidelines is applied to increase
22
a defendant’s punishment on account of a kind of harm that has already been fully
accounted for by application of another part of the Guidelines.” United States v.
Matos-Rodriguez, 188 F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Double counting a factor during sentencing is permitted if the
Sentencing Commission . . . intended that result and each guideline section in
question concerns conceptually separate notions relating to sentencing.” United
States v. Stevenson, 68 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). The two-
level enhancement was not impermissible double-counting because Demarest’s
violation of section 1956 was not factored into his base offense level. The base
offense level for money laundering does not distinguish between the various
money-laundering statutes, see U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(a) (covering violations of 18
U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957, 1960), but the enhancements do, see id. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(A)
(applying a one-level enhancement for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957); id. §
2S1.1(b)(2)(B) (applying a two-level enhancement for violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1956).
Demarest next argues that the district court erred when it applied a six-level
enhancement because he knew or believed that the funds were the proceeds of or
intended to promote the distribution of controlled substances, but this argument
also fails. Demarest argues that “his activity did not fall within the ambit of this
23
enhancement, particularly again in light of Santos . . . and Cuellar[,]” but he says
nothing about his belief that the agents’ purchase money was drug money or that
their purpose was to smuggle drugs. Demarest’s statements during the meetings
about the sale and his testimony at trial proved that he believed the laundered funds
were the proceeds of or intended to promote the distribution of illegal drugs.
IV. CONCLUSION
Demarest’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
24